a very good point lies in your topic here. it is starting to look pathetic. all the attempts to "rebrand" bitcoin and call it weird names is not going to work. bitcoin will remain bitcoin it doesn't matter how many different individuals or small groups of people fork from it.

you can create as many forks as you want and name them "bitcoin A" to "bitcoin Z" and everything in between, it won't make them bitcoin. it will make them an altcoin which is taking advantage of bitcoin's name.

Misleading. BITMAIN are not yet supporting Bitcoin Cash and don't have control over it. It's more to do with ViaBTC.I kind of agree with leaving the name as it is. I'm all for changing the ticker to BCH over BCC, but the name itself is fine. It leaves a distinction between itself and the earlier/legacy chain without pretending to be completely unrelated.

It's not the same as these attempts. Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts. They are very distinct from BCH.

Changing the symbol from BCC to BCH on the client and websites would help the brand as BCC is already taken. ViaBTC can't just expect BitConnect to go away just because they would rather use BCC for Bitcoin Cash. It looks like several exchanges are standardizing on BCH (BCash). Trezor has also. Having the brand consistent across exchanges is good for business and avoids confusing buyers.

You are completely right and miners are completely right to create even more confusion regarding their altcoin. They want the new name to be as similar to standard bitcoin ticker as possible - the more confused users who will think that BCC is legit the better for them.It will allow Bitmain to manipulate the price with even greater ease.

Misleading. BITMAIN are not yet supporting Bitcoin Cash and don't have control over it. It's more to do with ViaBTC.I kind of agree with leaving the name as it is. I'm all for changing the ticker to BCH over BCC, but the name itself is fine. It leaves a distinction between itself and the earlier/legacy chain without pretending to be completely unrelated.

It's not the same as these attempts. Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts. They are very distinct from BCH.

their not yet supporting it officially yes bc they have to hold on to the NYA and cant lose face by abandening it last minute. They have financial relationship with viabtc and created the software supporting the fork right? So little hard to believe they have nothing to do with it imo

It's not the same as these attempts. Those ones required consensus, whereas BCH does not require consensus to come into existence - the ones listed there either did not exist or were just alts rather than forks of the BTC blockchain which could also be regarded as alts. They are very distinct from BCH.

all of these ARE the same thing. and they all wanted the same thing, and they are all created by the same people and are backed by the same people and miners

they are all also were based on consensus once but when SegWit support started growing and reached a high level that it became clear to the above team that their proposal is dead in the waters they changed the consensus they were looking for and removed it completely. jut to hide this fact they started a new name. this is just a rename of "XT", "Classic", "Unlimited" nothing more.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

the list of clients do work on bitcoin mainnet but with functionality/features which core refuse to implement

..

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.